Com. v. Hannigan, T.
Com. v. Hannigan, T. No. 82 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 14, 2017Background
- Timothy J. Hannigan participated in multiple burglaries (and one attempted burglary) of businesses in Wyoming County in August 2015, some committed with accomplices.
- No victims were present during the burglaries. Charges included multiple counts of burglary, conspiracy, criminal trespass, theft, and criminal mischief; several charges were later nol prossed.
- On September 2, 2016, Hannigan pled guilty to four counts of burglary (18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4)) and two counts of conspiracy to commit burglary (18 Pa.C.S. § 903), and agreed to pay restitution.
- At sentencing (Nov. 9, 2016) the trial court imposed consecutive sentences on each count, producing an aggregate term of 7 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
- Hannigan filed post-sentence motions (challenging consecutive sentences as inappropriate for a crime spree); the trial court denied relief (with minor restitution amendment), and Hannigan timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for burglaries committed during a crime spree | Hannigan: offenses were part of a crime spree (closely timed/proximate) and sentencing should have been concurrent | Commonwealth/Trial court: sentencing discretion permits consecutive terms; no entitlement to a "volume discount"; consecutive sentences reasonable | Court affirmed: Hannigan failed to raise a substantial question; consecutive sentences were within sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (definition of "substantial question" for sentence review)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing discretion; only extreme cases present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant not entitled to a "volume discount" for multiple offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (bare claim of excessiveness from consecutive sentences does not present a substantial question)